- COPS Resource Center

Transcription

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides Series
No. 42
Witness
Intimidation
by
Kelly Dedel
www.cops.usdoj.gov
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!
www.PopCenter.org Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site
at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your
community, including:
• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides
• Interactive training exercises
• Online access to research and police practices
• Online problem analysis module.
Designed for police and those who work with them to
address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great
resource in problem-oriented policing.
Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides Series
Guide No. 42
Witness Intimidation
Kelly Dedel
This project was supported by cooperative agreement
#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein
are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official
position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific
companies, products, or services should not be considered an
endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department
of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement
discussion of the issues.
www.cops.usdoj.gov
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3
July 2006
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about
how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime
and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention
and to improving the overall response to incidents, not
to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents.
Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how
to implement specific responses. The guides are written
for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must
address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides
will be most useful to officers who:
• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles
and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial
decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to
analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of
a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed
to help police decide how best to analyze and address a
problem they have already identified. (A companion series
of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in
various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)
• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to
spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and
responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before
responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is
most likely to work in your community. You should not
blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must
decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.
What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what
works in one place may not work everywhere.
i
ii
• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police
business. The guides describe responses that other police
departments have used or that researchers have tested.
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to
your particular problem, they should help give a broader
view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think
you cannot implement some of these responses in your
jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when
police have discovered a more effective response, they
have succeeded in having laws and policies changed,
improving the response to the problem. (A companion
series of Response Guides has been produced to help you
understand how commonly-used police responses work
on a variety of problems.)
• Understand the value and the limits of research
knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful
research is available to the police; for other problems,
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series
summarize existing research whereas other guides
illustrate the need for more research on that particular
problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive
answers to all the questions you might have about the
problem. The research may help get you started in
designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you
exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the
particular nature of your local problem. In the interest
of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of
relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been
attributed to its sources. To have done so would have
overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references
listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most
heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research
on the subject.
• Are willing to work with others to find effective
solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot
implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.
They must frequently implement them in partnership with
other responsible private and public bodies including other
government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
private businesses, public utilities, community groups,
and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must
know how to forge genuine partnerships with others
and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making
these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular
individuals or groups in the community with whom
police might work to improve the overall response to that
problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals
that individuals and groups other than the police are in
a stronger position to address problems and that police
ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do
so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility
for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this
topic.
The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing
philosophy that promotes and supports organizational
strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime
and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and
police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize
problem-solving and police-community partnerships in
the context of addressing specific public safety problems.
For the most part, the organizational strategies that can
facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary
considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of
these guides.
These guides have drawn on research findings and police
practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.
iii
iv
Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from
country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere
experience common problems. In a world that is becoming
increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be
aware of research and successful practices beyond the
borders of their own countries.
Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the
research literature and reported police practice and is
anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police
executives and researchers prior to publication.
The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide
feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency
may have effectively addressed a problem using responses
not considered in these guides and your experiences and
knowledge could benefit others. This information will be
used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback
and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to
[email protected].
For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit
the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.
popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:
• the Problem-Specific Guides series
• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series
• instructional information about problem-oriented policing
and related topics
• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise
• an interactive Problem Analysis Module
• a manual for crime analysts
• online access to important police research and practices
• information about problem-oriented policing conferences
and award programs.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are
Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate
Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director).
While each guide has a primary author, other project
team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer
reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text,
recommending research and offering suggestions on
matters of format and style.
The project team that developed the guide series
comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin
Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University),
John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott
(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson
(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North
Carolina State University.)
Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and
Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback
on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the
project.
Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS
Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the
Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the
direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this
guide.
v
Contents
Contents
About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
The Problem of Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Locations and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Protecting Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Deterring Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 vii
viii
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Problem of Witness Intimidation
The Problem of Witness Intimidation
What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover
This guide begins by describing the problem of witness
intimidation and reviewing the factors that increase its
risks. It then identifies a series of questions that can help
analyze local witness intimidation problems. Finally, it
reviews responses to the problem of witness intimidation
as identified through research and police practice.
Witness intimidation is but one aspect of the larger set of
problems related to protecting crime victims and witnesses
from further harm. Related problems not directly
addressed in this guide, each of which require separate
analysis, include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
domestic violence
acquaintance rape
stalking
exploitation of trafficked women
gun violence among youthful offenders
gang-related crime
bullying in schools
drug trafficking
organized crime.
Some of these related crime problems are covered in
other guides in this series, all of which are listed at the
end of this guide.
Although the problem of witness intimidation has
special significance for prosecutors, it also has important
implications for police. This guide focuses on the issues
and responses that are most relevant to police, although
useful resources for prosecutors are highlighted where
appropriate.
1
2
§
In this guide, the term “witness”
is used to refer both to victims and
to bystanders who could provide
information to police. The term
“victim” is used to denote the victim
of the initial crime.
§§
Witnesses refuse to cooperate
with police for reasons that are not
related to intimidation. For example,
a general lack of trust in the police
may deter some witnesses from
cooperating. In addition, research
has shown that a desire for privacy,
a desire to protect the offender from
criminal prosecution, emotional
attachments, economic dependence,
or a desire to protect children may
also deter victims of domestic
violence from cooperating with
police (Felson et al. 2002).
Witness intimidation plays a role in many types of
crime and is related to other problems that police
encounter during the course of an investigation.
Witness intimidation, however, is not the same as
repeat victimization. Although in both cases the same
offenders may be responsible for multiple events, their
motives are different. In witness intimidation, the intent
is to discourage the victim from reporting a crime to
police or from cooperating with prosecutors, whereas
in repeat victimization, the motive is often acquisitive.
However, repeat victims may believe that their subsequent
victimization was in retaliation for reporting the initial
crime, even where intimidation was not the motive. 1
General Description of the Problem
Citizens who witness or are victimized by crime are
sometimes reluctant to report incidents to police or to
assist in the prosecution of offenders.§ Such reluctance
may be in response to a perceived or actual threat of
retaliation by the offender or his or her associates, or may
be the result of more generalized community norms that
discourage residents from cooperating with police and
prosecutors.§§ In some communities, close ties between
witnesses, offenders, and their families and friends may
also deter witnesses from cooperating; these relationships
can provide a vitally important context for understanding
witness intimidation. Particularly in violent and gangrelated crime, the same individual may, at different times,
be a victim, a witness, and an offender.2 Historically,
witness intimidation is most closely associated with
organized crime and domestic violence, but has recently
thwarted efforts to investigate and prosecute drug, gang,
violent, and other types of crime.
Witness intimidation takes many forms, including:
•
•
•
•
•
implicit threats, looks, or gestures
explicit threats of violence
actual physical violence
property damage
other threats, such as challenges to child custody or
immigration status.
More specifically, offenders may:
•
•
•
•
•
•
confront witnesses verbally
send notes and letters
make nuisance phone calls
park or loiter outside the homes of witnesses
damage witnesses’ houses or property
threaten witnesses’ children, spouses, parents, or other
family members
• assault or even murder witnesses or their family members.
Threats are much more common than actual physical
violence and are in fact just as effective in deterring
cooperation.3 Although some witnesses experience a single
incident of intimidation, intimidation may also involve an
escalating series of threats and actions that become more
violent over time.4 Other witnesses do not experience
intimidation directly, but rather believe that retaliation will
occur if they cooperate with police. Either way, they are
deterred from offering relevant information that might
assist police and prosecutors.
Particularly in communities dominated by gang and
drug-related crime, residents have seen firsthand that
offenders are capable of violence and brutality. Many
also believe that offenders will return to the community
3
4
§
Drive-by shootings and other
acts of blatant violence promote
fear among residents, as do actions
specifically warning residents not to
cooperate with police. In 2004, gang
members from Baltimore, Maryland
appeared in a DVD entitled Stop
Snitching, in which they threaten
harm to those who cooperate
with police. Stop Snitching tee shirts
have also appeared in retail outlets
nationwide (Butterfield 2005).
after relatively brief periods of incarceration or will be
able to arrange for intimidation by others while they
themselves are incarcerated. The experience of violence
in the community lends credibility to threats and creates
a general sense of fear that discourages cooperation with
police.
National Public Radio
§§
In 2004, only 50 percent of
violent crimes and 39 percent of
property crimes were reported
to police; however, only a very
small portion of victims surveyed
indicated that intimidation was
the reason they did not report the
crime. Most often, victims did not
report crime because they believed
that the incident was too trivial to
involve police or that the matter was
personal (Karmen 2004; Catalano
2005).
A fire set at this house in Baltimore killed a family of seven
in 2002, drawing national attention to the problem of witness
intimidation.
Witness intimidation commonly takes two mutuallyreinforcing forms.5
• Case-specific intimidation involves threats or violence
intended to discourage a particular person from
providing information to police or from testifying in a
specific case.
• Community-wide intimidation involves acts that are intended
to create a general sense of fear and an attitude of
non-cooperation with police and prosecutors within a
particular community.§
The prevalence of witness intimidation is difficult to
quantify for many reasons. First, crime is underreported
based upon a number of factors that have nothing to do
with witness intimidation.§§ Second, where intimidation is
successful, victims and witnesses report neither the initial
crime nor the intimidation. 6 Third, although victimization
surveys and interviews with witnesses whose cases go to
court are helpful, they capture only a subset of the larger
population of witnesses. They do not provide information
on the experiences of the many witnesses who drop out
of the process before a suspect is charged or a case goes
to court.7 Finally, there has been no empirical research on
the scope or specific characteristics of community-wide
intimidation.
That said, small-scale studies and surveys of police and
prosecutors suggest that witness intimidation is pervasive
and increasing. For example, a study of witnesses
appearing in criminal courts in Bronx County, New York
revealed that 36 percent of witnesses had been directly
threatened; among those who had not been threatened
directly, 57 percent feared reprisals. 8 In the United
Kingdom, a survey of witnesses appearing in court
revealed that a majority had been affected by intimidation
either through direct experience (53 percent) or because
they feared intimidation (17 percent). Anecdotes and
surveys of police and prosecutors suggest that witness
intimidation is even more widespread. 9 Prosecutors
estimate that witness intimidation plays a role in 75
to 100 percent of violent crime committed in gangdominated neighborhoods, although it may play less of a
role in communities not dominated by gangs and drugs. 10
The increasing prevalence of witness intimidation is a
reflection of the same social and psychological factors
that have changed the nature of crime and offenders over
the past two decades, including:11
• a lack of respect for authority, particularly among juvenile
offenders
• the expectation that life will be brief or will be spent in
prison
5
6
• a sense of powerlessness that leads to gang formation
• the availability of firearms and a willingness to use them
• increased penalties that raise the stakes of prosecution.
Most intimidation is neither violent nor life-threatening,
but even a perception that reprisals are likely can be
distressing and disruptive to witnesses.12 Experiencing
intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will
engage with the criminal justice system, both in the
instant offense and in the future.13 Although the public
tends to overestimate the actual risk of harm, its fear
and the resulting reluctance to cooperate can have
serious collateral consequences for the criminal justice
system. Witness intimidation deprives investigators and
prosecutors of critical evidence, often preventing suspects
from being charged or causing cases to be abandoned
or lost in court. In addition, witness intimidation lowers
public confidence in the criminal justice system and
creates the perception that the criminal justice system
cannot protect the citizenry. As a result, police expend
significant time and energy persuading witnesses to come
forward; and when they do, police spend considerable
energy reassuring and protecting them.
Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation
Understanding the factors that contribute to the problem
of witness intimidation will help to frame local analysis, to
determine good effectiveness measures, to recognize key
intervention points, and to select appropriate responses.
Intimidators
Intimidation is usually perpetrated by those involved
in the original offense, although the original offender’s
friends, family members, and criminal associates may
also threaten or harm witnesses.14 In gang-related crimes,
friends, family members, and associates may be more
likely to threaten and intimidate witnesses. 15 In addition to
gang and drug-related crimes, intimidation is particularly
prevalent in cases involving domestic violence, bias crime,
harassment, and sex offenses.16 In contrast, cases involving
property crime, such as burglary or car theft, are rarely
affected by intimidation.17
Although intimidation is a key feature of gang and drugrelated violence, the offenders are not necessarily aligned
with nationally affiliated gangs or large drug operations;
members of loosely affiliated gangs and local dealers may
also protect their interests through intimidation. 18 Surveys
suggest that offenders with a sophisticated understanding
of the criminal justice system may be less willing to
engage directly in intimidation and will either refrain from
attempting to intimidate witnesses or will permit others to
intimidate witnesses on their behalf. 19
Victims
Victims of intimidation are not a homogeneous group.
Although all citizens who agree to serve as witnesses need
to be protected from reprisals, their vulnerability depends
largely upon circumstance and may therefore change over
time. Further, intimidation is not evenly distributed socially
or geographically. People in certain locations—inner cities,
densely populated areas, and communities where social
cooperation is poor—are more likely to suffer intimidation
than are others.20 The characteristics of those likely to be
victims of intimidation cluster around several criteria, many
of which appear to be interdependent.
• Gender and age. Children and females may be at greater
risk of intimidation than adults and males.21
7
8
• Relationship. Those with close ties to an offender
are at a greater risk of intimidation.22 These ties can
be romantic or familial; or the victim and offender
may simply know each other from having mutual
acquaintances or from living in the same neighborhood.
Victims of domestic violence appear to be at an elevated
risk for retaliation, especially where the victim lives with
the offender, is economically dependent on the offender,
or is compelled to remain in contact with the offender
because of shared parenting responsibilities.23
• Proximity. Victims and witnesses who live in geographic
proximity to offenders are at a greater risk of intimidation
than those who live in different neighborhoods or
communities.24 Surveys suggest that it is rare for an
offender or his associates to leave their home community
to intimidate a witness who lives in another area.25
• Immigration status. Recent or illegal immigrants
may be at an increased risk of intimidation.26 In some
Asian cultures, for example, intimidation is a key feature
of gang-related extortion and gang members have a
reputation for ruthlessness. Coupled with a fear of
deportation and a lack of understanding of the role
of police, such social experiences can lead to a greater
susceptibility to threats and warnings not to cooperate
with law enforcement.
• Criminal involvement. Victims and witnesses with
criminal records, active warrants, or active parole and
probation conditions may be particularly hesitant to
provide information to police. In addition, witnesses
who were also accomplices to the original offense may
be choice targets for intimidation. And in inter-gang
violence, where the roles of offender, victim, and witness
are often interchangeable and revolving,27 victims and
witnesses may not cooperate with police because they
intend to retaliate against the original offender or because
of peer group norms that discourage cooperation.
Locations and Timing
Many witnesses are intimidated long before they are
asked to appear in court, most often by a community
norm that discourages residents from cooperating with
police. Most explicit acts of intimidation take place where
police exert little control: at the witness’s home, while
the witness is at school or at work, or while the witness
is running errands or socializing in the neighborhood. 28
However, witnesses also report being intimidated at the
scene of the crime, while at the police station making a
statement or identifying a suspect, and sometimes while in
the courthouse waiting to testify; some even report being
intimidated while on the witness stand. The time between
a suspect’s arrest and trial is the most dangerous; repeated
and lengthy trial delays expand the opportunities available
to a motivated intimidator.29
Motivations
Offenders attempt to intimidate victims and witnesses
for a number of reasons. Gang members use intimidation
to subdue challenges to their authority or to reclaim lost
gang status.30 Gang members and other offenders use
intimidation to avoid detection by police and to avoid
conviction once they are arrested. Compared to the
penalties for violent crime, penalties for intimidation are
relatively light. As a result, offenders may feel they have
little to lose and much to gain by avoiding conviction
through intimidation.31 Finally, the use and increasing
sophistication of DNA and other forensic testing mean
that deterring witness cooperation may be one of the only
ways left available to weaken the prosecution’s case. 32
9
Understanding Your Local Problem
The above information provides only a generalized
description of the problem of witness intimidation. To
combat witness intimidation effectively, you must combine
the basic facts with a more specific understanding of
your local problem. Only by carefully analyzing your local
problem will you be able to design an effective remedial
strategy.
Stakeholders
The following groups have an interest in the witness
intimidation problem and ought to be considered for the
contribution they might make to gathering information
about the problem and responding to it:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
victim-witness units
crime victim advocacy groups
prosecutors
defense attorneys
courts
witnesses’ families and friends
witnesses’ employers
public housing authorities or apartment complex
managers.
Asking the Right Questions
Intimidation can occur at any time, from the point
when a criminal incident first occurs to the moment the
witness provides evidence in court; hence, it is essential
to collaborate with prosecutors, victim advocates, and
other stakeholders in analyzing and solving the problem.
Because many witnesses drop out of the process before
their cases go to court, it is essential to survey witnesses
11
12
§
The Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office, Victim Services
Division, utilizes a short interview
guide to collect relevant facts about
intimidation. It includes questions
about the intimidator, type of
intimidating conduct, and the time
and place that the intimidation
occurred. A copy of the interview
guide is available in Finn and Healey
(1996).
and victims at multiple points in the process so that
their responses address all the reasons and issues that
deter them from cooperating fully. Finally, police cannot
respond effectively to a problem if they do not recognize
its occurrence. Police awareness can be increased through
training, shift briefings, and police newsletters. 33 Guidance
should be offered for spotting signs of intimidation; even
something as simple as requiring officers taking statements
or interviewing witnesses to ask about intimidation directly
can be an effective analytical tool. 34, § Unfortunately,
training curricula regarding the warning signs and typical
behaviors of those who have been intimidated are not well
developed.
The following are some critical questions that you should
ask in analyzing your local witness intimidation problem.
Your answers to these and other questions will help you
choose the most appropriate set of responses later on.
Incidents
• What types of behaviors do victims and witnesses perceive
as intimidating or threatening?
• What do offenders say to witnesses that creates a fear of
retribution?
• How often are acts of intimidation violent? How often do
they involve property damage?
• Are the family members of witnesses threatened or
intimidated?
• What do witnesses believe will happen if they cooperate
with police or prosecutors?
• Is there a general sense among community members
that they should not cooperate with police? If so, what
contributes to this attitude?
• In what proportion of reported crime does witness
intimidation occur? What do these incidents have in
common? Type of offense? Location? Offender profile?
• In what proportion of crimes is intimidation unreported?
What accounts for the failure to report incidents of
intimidation?
Intimidators
• Which individuals act or speak in ways that witnesses
perceive as threatening? Offenders? Their associates?
Friends? Family members?
• After what types of crime does intimidation occur?
• What roles do gangs and drugs play in intimidation?
• Do the friends or family members of witnesses act or
speak in ways that lead witnesses to not cooperate?
• Do offenders focus their intimidation efforts within
their own communities or do they travel outside their
communities to deter witnesses from cooperating?
Victims
• What are the characteristics of those who are deterred
from cooperating with police and prosecutors? Gender?
Age? Race? Criminal history? Previous victimization?
• Why do some witnesses continue to cooperate with police
and prosecutors, despite having been threatened?
• What do witnesses say it would take for them to testify
despite any intimidation?
• Where do the victims of intimidation live and work in
relation to the intimidators?
• What types of relationships do witnesses have with those
who intimidate them?
• What roles do culture and immigration status play in
intimidation?
13
14
• Were those who are intimidated involved in the
commission of the original offense? Do they have a
history of criminal activity with the intimidators?
• Why are those on parole or probation reluctant to
cooperate with police and prosecutors? Are there
specific violations that they are trying to conceal by not
cooperating?
Locations/Times
• Where do victims and witnesses feel most vulnerable to
intimidation? Home? Work? School? Out and about in the
community? At the precinct? In court?
• When do incidents of intimidation occur? At the scene?
When witnesses provide statements at the precinct? When
witnesses are asked to identify suspects? During the trial?
After the trial is over?
Motivations
• What reasons do intimidators give for their behavior?
• What do offenders indicate would deter them from trying
to intimidate witnesses?
Current Responses
• What has been done by police and prosecutors in the past
to minimize case-specific intimidation?
• What has been done in the past by police and prosecutors
to address community-wide intimidation?
• Have police or prosecutors inadvertently validated
community perceptions or fears related to intimidation?
If so, how? By losing a case where a witness testified? By
eroding public trust during a police incident? By assisting
in immigration enforcement in an ethnic neighborhood?
• What are the penalties for witness tampering or
intimidation? Are intimidators aware of them? Are they
sufficiently harsh?
• Which current responses focus on the victim or witness?
Which focus on the offender and his or her family and
associates?
• What are the strengths of current responses to the
problem of intimidation?
• Are current responses sufficient to resolve the problem?
If not, why not?
• What other agencies or organizations can play a role in
a comprehensive response to the problem of witness
intimidation? Do police and prosecutors have existing
relationships with these agencies or organizations?
• What sources of funding are available to support the
efforts of police and prosecutors in dealing with the
problem of witness intimidation?
Measuring Your Effectiveness
Measurement will allow you to determine the degree to
which your efforts have succeeded and may also suggest
how your responses can be modified to produce the
intended results. In order to determine how serious
the problem is, you should measure the extent of your
problem before you implement responses; in that way,
measuring the problem after responses have been
implemented will allow you to determine whether your
solutions have been effective. All measures should be
implemented in both the target area and surrounding
areas. (For more detailed guidance on measuring
effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series,
Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police
Problem-Solvers.)
15
16
The following are potentially useful measures of the
effectiveness of responses to witness intimidation:
§
The Savannah Police Department
established a witness protection
program with the goal of reducing
the number of intimidation
incidents. The number of incidents
initially increased because police
began to ask all victims and
witnesses if they felt afraid or had
experienced intimidation, rather than
relying on victims and witnesses to
initiate the discussion (Goldkamp,
Gottfredson and Moore 1999).
• reduced number of witnesses who experience threats or
intimidation
• increased number of witnesses who provide information
to police
• increased number of witnesses who provide statements to
police
• increased number of witnesses who agree to testify in
court
• increased proportion of convictions.
The following may offer an indirect indication that the
situation is improving:
• increased proportion of crimes reported to police
• increased number of witnesses who are aware of the
protections that are available to them
• increased number of witnesses who report intimidation§
• increased number of offenders who are charged with
intimidation
• increased public confidence in the criminal justice system
and its ability to protect the citizenry.
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation
Responses to the Problem of Witness
Intimidation
Analyzing your local problem will give you a better
understanding of the factors that contribute to it. Once
you have analyzed your local problem and established a
baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider
possible responses to the problem.
The following response strategies will provide a
foundation for addressing your particular intimidation
problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of
studies and police reports. Several strategies may apply to
your local problem. It is critical that you tailor responses
to local circumstances and that you can justify each
response based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an
effective strategy will involve several different responses.
Because law enforcement alone is seldom effective in
reducing or solving the problem, do not limit yourself
to considering only what police can do; rather, carefully
consider whether others in your community share
responsibility for the problem and whether they can help
respond to it.
General Considerations for an Effective
Response Strategy
1. Forming multi-agency partnerships. The appropriate
party to address the threat of witness intimidation may
change as a case moves through the criminal justice
system. For example, whereas police may be responsible
for protecting or supporting witnesses at the outset of
a case, the responsibility might shift to the prosecutor
when the case goes to trial. And depending upon the
type of protection required, other agencies may need to
become involved as well. For example, public housing,
public benefits, and social services agencies may all
17
18
§
Finn and Healey (1996) offer
comprehensive guidance for
crafting cooperative agreements
and designating functional roles for
agency staff.
have a role to play where circumstances dictate that
a witness should be relocated. Hence, planning and
implementing a comprehensive program to prevent
and address witness intimidation requires multiple
actors: an organizing committee of administrators who
are authorized to commit agency resources; a team to
design program operations; a program administrator;
case investigators; victim advocates; and police support.§
Unfortunately, shared responsibilities can also result in
blurred accountability.35 For this reason, interagency
agreements are sometimes needed to outline each
agency’s responsibilities, the services to be provided, the
financial ramifications and obligations, and the parameters
for allowable expenses and services.36 Not only do
interagency agreements create accountability, but they
also make service delivery more coordinated and efficient.
Still, such agreements require significant levels of trust
between agencies.
2. Limiting liability. Some police agencies are hesitant
to implement comprehensive witness security programs
because they fear that recognizing witness intimidation
will create liability in the event that the intimidation is
successful and harm befalls the witness. Liability can be
limited by in a number of ways, including:
• taking reports of intimidation seriously and engaging in
the defined process for protecting witnesses
• promising only those security services that can reasonably be provided
• documenting all offers of assistance and all efforts to
protect witnesses, along with the acceptance or refusal
of such assistance
• making sure that witnesses understand the
circumstances under which protections will be
withdrawn and documenting all decisions to withdraw
security.37
3. Strengthening ties between police and the
community. Ideally, community residents will be
committed to reporting crime and giving evidence
in court; and in return, police will be committed to
providing support, information, and protection to
potential witnesses.38 Fostering cooperation on the
part of reluctant witnesses is a natural extension of
community policing and community prosecution, which
focus on engaging residents in preventing and responding
to crime.39 For example, mobile precincts can increase
police visibility after a high-profile gang-related crime in
an area where intimidation is likely to occur. Storefront
precincts can increase the level of contact with residents
and make it easier to provide encouragement and support.
Community prosecutors can have a visible presence at
crime scenes and can network with witnesses to build
cases. Sensitivity to fear of intimidation can create trust
and a sense that police recognize why some residents may
be afraid to cooperate.§
Efforts to develop trust and to communicate
understanding can also be enhanced by outreach efforts
designed to educate residents about witness intimidation
and to provide information about related services.
Outreach efforts should involve multiple agencies
including police, prosecutors, housing and other social
service agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, the
U.S. Attorney, and victim advocacy groups.40 Because
perceptions of the likelihood and severity of intimidation
are often exaggerated, outreach is essential to minimize
irrational fears and to provide reliable information.41
Outreach efforts are also one of the only ways to reach
witnesses whose fear prevents them from making any
contact with the police at all. The most effective message
is one that draws a connection between serving as a
witness and preventing drug dealers and gang members
from terrorizing communities.42
§
19
One police department avoids
handing out official business cards
at the scene. Instead, their cards
read “Don’t talk to me here. Call
me.” and provide residents with a
direct phone number to investigating
officers (Finn and Healey 1996).
20
Finally, outreach is particularly essential in Asian
communities and in communities with recent or illegal
immigrants.43 These residents may not be familiar
with the criminal justice process and may need both
information and encouragement to participate in it.
Matching the cultural and linguistic skills of police and
other outreach personnel to the target community can
also encourage cooperation.
4. Assessing the risk of intimidation. The level of
intimidation experienced by a witness should dictate
the type and intensity of services provided by police,
prosecutors, and other agencies. Standardized risk
assessments will ensure that these decisions are made
consistently, objectively, and fairly. In the United
Kingdom, classification as a vulnerable or intimidated
witness is based upon a number of factors: characteristics
of the witness, such as age, gender, and physical and
mental condition; the nature of the original offense; the
relationship between the witness and the offender; the
nature of the evidence the witness is able to provide; the
characteristics of the defendant, such as criminal history,
access to firearms, and connections to criminal networks;
and the nature of any direct threats.44 Assessments
should be conducted periodically to determine whether
the level of risk has increased or decreased and whether
current protections are sufficient. Sharing the results of
risk assessments will provide witnesses with a realistic
understanding of potential dangers and allow them to
make informed decisions about the types of protections
they will commit to using.45
While risk assessments are useful for allocating
resources, they may inadvertently invalidate the fears
and anxieties of witnesses who do not meet the criteria
for more intensive forms of assistance.46 Further, most intimidation experiences are too complex for standardized risk assessment instruments to be useful.47
5. Choosing the best strategy. Criminal prosecutions
typically serve several purposes: although they are
intended to do justice in a particular crime, they often also
serve as a means of addressing an underlying problem,
such as drug dealing or gang activity. If there is reason
to believe that witness intimidation might stymie criminal
prosecutions, police should consider whether prosecutions
requiring civilian witnesses are the best approach to
dealing with a specific crime problem. Other approaches,
such as civil remedies involving nuisance abatement or
injunctions, can minimize the need to find individuals
who are willing to testify in criminal court.
Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation
Protecting Witnesses
6. Minimizing the risk of identification witnesses
face when reporting crime or offering statements.
Particularly in neighborhoods where communitywide intimidation is a factor, residents may hesitate to
cooperate with police at the scene of a crime because
they fear being labeled as an informant or a “rat.” As a
result, methods for reporting crime or offering witness
statements that do not make cooperation obvious
to observers are sometimes needed.48 For example,
police can refrain from interviewing witnesses at the
scene, choosing instead to visit them at their homes in
plainclothes after activity on the street has diminished.
House-to-house calls that disguise which residents are
cooperating can also be helpful, although these additional
21
22
§
Crime prevention officers
should be routinely involved in
these activities. In addition, the
Fresno District Attorney’s Witness
Intervention Team partnered with
ADT Security Services to protect
witnesses who chose not to relocate
after experiencing intimidation. ADT
provided free panic alarm technology
in the witnesses’ homes to afford a
greater sense of security (Goldkamp,
Gottfredson and Moore 1999).
visits increase police workloads. Some witnesses may be
more comfortable meeting at the precinct or in a neutral
place, such as a church or a school.
7. Protecting the anonymity of witnesses. Given the risk
of threats and intimidation, many witnesses do not want
offenders to learn their identities or addresses. Practices
such as broadcasting witness names and addresses over
the police radio, asking witnesses to identify suspects out
in the open, and revealing a witness’s identity to a suspect
can all jeopardize witness safety. Limiting the information
that is available about witnesses and taking other
protective measures can effectively combat these issues.
Protecting the anonymity of witnesses once a case goes
to trial can be more problematic. Recent court cases
have debated the balance between witness safety and a
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.
To date, court opinions have emphasized the rights
granted to defendants by the Sixth Amendment of the
Constitution.49 However, numerous measures have been
used effectively to limit opportunities for intimidation
to occur in the courtroom. These include allowing the
witness to give evidence via a closed circuit television link
and using screens that allow the judge, jury, and attorneys
to see the witness while at the same time shielding
the witness from the defendant and members of the
public.50 In some cases, the witness’s name and address
are not read aloud in court, making it more difficult for a
defendant’s fellow gang-members or criminal associates to
target the witness.51
8. Using alarms and other crime prevention devices.
Intruder alarms, motion detectors, cameras, and outdoor
lighting can be used to deter intimidators from targeting
witnesses at home.§ Target hardening devices, such as
deadbolt locks, window locks, window bars, grates, and
pin locks on sliding doors can also make unauthorized
entry more difficult. All of these measures can give
intimidated witnesses a greater sense of security in their
homes.
When not at home, intimidated witnesses can be equipped
with portable personal alarms.§ These pendant alarms
can be linked to cellular networks so that they work in
any location.52 Some models open a voice channel upon
activation so that police can hear what is happening and
can reassure the witness that assistance is on the way.
Alarms are effective because they assure witnesses that
intimidation efforts will receive a rapid response. And
because they do not require a constant police presence,
personal alarms are less costly than bodyguards, while still
providing the same around the clock protection.53
9. Reducing the likelihood of contact between
witnesses and offenders. Most often, acts of
intimidation are committed at a witness’s home,
workplace, or school, or during the normal course of the
witness’s daily activities. Minimizing the opportunities
and avenues by which witnesses come into contact with
offenders can reduce the incidence of intimidation. For
example, witnesses can alter their normal routines by
varying the routes taken to work or school and making
their schedules irregular and unpredictable. Because
many witnesses receive nuisance calls or are contacted by
telephone, obtaining an unlisted telephone number and
using caller identification and call blocking can provide
additional insulation from unwanted contact.54
10. Transporting witnesses to and from work and school.
Many witnesses feel vulnerable when traveling to and
from work or school, or while attending to their business
§
23
The use of portable personal
alarms has been shown to reduce
victims’ levels of anxiety in domestic
violence situations (Lloyd, Farrell
and Pease 1999).
24
§
See U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General
(2000) for a complete discussion
of victim and witness assistance
programs.
§§
The Suffolk County,
Massachusetts victim assistance
program targets victims and
witnesses in gang-related cases.
Intensive personal contact was
required; notices sent through the
mail and occasional phone calls
were not sufficient to allay fears or
to sustain engagement (Johnson,
Webster and Connors 1995).
in the community. Police escorts during these times can
deter offenders from making contact. However, such
protection schemes consume significant police resources
and may not be feasible for broad application. In addition,
the presence of an escort may draw unwanted attention
to the witness. Such intensive protection should be
reserved for only those witnesses who are at a high risk
of serious injury.
11. Supporting witnesses. Over the past two decades,
federal legislation has established a list of victims’ rights
and defined a group of services that federal agencies
must provide to crime victims.§ Most state and county
prosecutors afford crime victims these same rights
and services. Such programs can also be implemented
by police departments. Departments that offer victim
assistance services have found that witnesses are
more willing to report crimes and to cooperate with
prosecutors; in addition, such witnesses offer more
effective testimony and also demonstrate improved
recall.55
In general, such assistance programs encourage victims
to cooperate in the criminal justice process and provide
counseling and other services designed to address the
emotional impact of victimization. Most offer emergency
services, counseling, advocacy and support, claims
assistance, and court-related services.56 Of particular
benefit to police in cases involving intimidation, victim
advocates typically provide:
• general information about the criminal justice system
and what the witness can expect
• specific information regarding the suspect’s arrest
status, bail, pretrial release, and court dates
• engagement with victims early in the case and ongoing
contact throughout the case.§§
Some assistance programs provide 24-hour hotlines with staff trained to counsel victims and to refer emergency situations to police where appropriate.57 Some police hesitate to work closely with victim advocates, fearing that they will interfere with police procedures, create more work or stress, or will ask inappropriate questions that might compromise the integrity of an investigation.58 In the past two decades, however, research has shown that victim assistance programs produce a number of benefits to police, including reduced stress, faster return to patrol after responding to a crime scene, and additional and higher-quality evidence.59 In addition, victim advocates commonly handle all referrals for assistance and services, freeing police from this responsibility. Finally, advocates can calm victims and witnesses and address their emotional needs so that they are better prepared to provide accurate information.
However, overloading victim advocates is a key concern.60
Their services should be seen as a complement to, not a replacement for, support offered by police. In particular, police should offer reassurance, provide witnesses with cell phones or other direct contact numbers, and maintain ongoing contact to reassess the level of threat and to assuage any other concerns witnesses may have.
12. Keeping witnesses and defendants separated at the
courthouse. Other than at home, witnesses are most
often intimidated in the courthouse, both while waiting
to testify and while in the courtroom giving testimony.
Not only must witnesses endure a face-to-face encounter
with the defendant, but they may also be apprehensive
about contact with the defendant’s family and friends.
Key danger areas include courthouse entrances, hallways,
waiting areas, refreshment areas, and restrooms. Separate
waiting rooms and entrances for witnesses and defendants
25
26
can be useful. Some jurisdictions use an on-call system, in
which witnesses are provided with pagers that summon
them to the courthouse when they are needed to testify.
This practice eliminates the need for witnesses to remain
in the courthouse throughout the day, thereby reducing
opportunities for intimidation to occur.61
Many victim assistance programs provide escort services
to and from court; in addition, advocates often remain
with witnesses throughout the day and accompany them
into public areas of the courthouse. This can be especially
effective in gang-related cases, where fellow gang
members may attend the trial in large numbers in order to
show their solidarity with the defendant and to intimidate
witnesses into withholding or changing their testimony.
The use of video cameras at courtroom entrances can
discourage such practices, as gang members on probation
or parole may not want to risk being seen associating
with other gang members, lest they violate the conditions
of their supervision.62 Studies in the United Kingdom
have found that courthouse-based efforts have effectively
reduced the negative effects of intimidation.63
13. Relocating witnesses. Because it is unusual for
offenders to travel outside of their neighborhoods to
intimidate witnesses, simply moving a witness to another
location can effectively protect him or her from harm.
Of course, the key to this strategy is to ensure that the
new location remains confidential. Out of boredom, or
because they are reluctant to sever ties with friends and
family, the witnesses themselves may compromise the
secrecy of their new locations. Further, many witnesses
require support from numerous agencies, such as public
housing and social services. The confidentiality of
transactions made on their behalf should be assured in
formal interagency agreements.
Police and prosecutors consider relocation to be the most
reliable method of protecting witnesses.64 However, it is
costly, time consuming, and requires a significant level
of cooperation, from both public agencies and witnesses
themselves. Originally, the only type of relocation
available was through the Federal Witness Security
Program, which involved permanent relocation and
complete identity changes for witnesses and their families.
Since the inception of the federal program in 1970, less
extravagant models have been established by state and
local jurisdictions, requiring a less significant commitment
of public resources and a less extreme commitment from
witnesses. These three types are discussed below.
a. Emergency relocation. When danger is imminent,
witnesses can be quickly moved to a shelter, hotel, motel,
or other facility.§ Witnesses are registered using false
names and payment is made through an intermediary,
not by the police or prosecutor.65 Witnesses can also be
placed with family or friends in other communities or
even out-of-state, usually for airfare or the price of a bus
ticket. These placements usually only last for a few days
or weeks, until the threat has passed or a more permanent
solution is found.
b. Temporary or short-term relocation. It may be
necessary to provide for extended periods of relocation
when witnesses remain at risk for longer periods of
time. Such short-term programs may be appropriate in
jurisdictions where gangs are loosely organized, small,
or poorly established.66 Witnesses can either be placed
in rental units or with out-of-state friends or family
until the trial is over. Housing witnesses with others can
be cost-effective and also offers a source of emotional
support that advocates and police cannot provide. These
arrangements are most successful when police confirm
§
27
A witness security program in
Savannah, Georgia used housing at
a nearby military base to provide a
safe living environment for witnesses
who had been threatened. Baltimore,
Maryland established safe houses
to provide emergency shelter to
intimidated witnesses. However,
when witnesses returned to their
home communities, they often
revealed the location of the safe
house, compromising its security
(Goldkamp, Gottfredson and Moore
1999).
28
§
The Illinois Gang Crime Witness
Protection Program struggled to gain
speedy approval for the outlay of
funds. These delays contributed to the
underutilization of the program, as
local police and prosecutors could not
take action without a commitment for
reimbursement from the state. This
situation improved once the process
for distributing funds was streamlined
(Bauer et al. 1997).
§§
It is important to understand
the difference between the types of
publicly assisted housing. “Public
housing” refers to publicly-owned
residential properties for eligible
families at assisted rents that reflect
the ability to pay. “Section 8 housing”
refers to certificates and vouchers for
federal rent subsidies that can be used
to pay for a privately-owned house
or apartment. Section 8 certificates
are particularly useful because they
allow for placement in a number of
neighborhoods (Finn and Healey 1996).
§§§
Finn and Healey (1996) offer
extensive guidance for working with
public housing authorities, including
HUD eligibility requirements, tips for
overcoming waiting list barriers, using
floating vouchers, and advocating with
landlords.
that the sponsoring family is willing to house the witness,
when the witness stays with someone unknown to the
offender, when police in the receiving jurisdiction are
notified, and when the witness is monitored regularly to
ensure that she remains willing to testify.67
Most short-term relocation programs cover the cost of
relocating, such as rent, security deposit, and moving
expenses, and also provide monthly subsidies for utilities,
food, clothing, and other living expenses.§ Due to the
expense involved, financial support is always time-limited,
although a witness is usually free to stay in the new
location if she so desires. The U.S. Attorney has access
to the federal Emergency Witness Assistance Program, in
which assistance is limited to only one month.68
Short-term relocation strategies are greatly enhanced
by partnerships with federal and local public housing
authorities.§§ When a witness already resides in a public
housing development, a rapid shift of residence can be
made with few complications.§§§ It may also be beneficial
to determine whether the witness is eligible for public
housing or other forms of public assistance. The transfer
of benefits to the new location can be cumbersome and
time-consuming without proper interagency agreements.
§§§§
In the late 1990s, ScotlandStrathclyde established a witness
protection program modeled after the
Federal Witness Security Program.
Effective elements of the program
included collaborating with housing,
social services, and health agencies;
establishing direct links between
administrators and those responsible
for day-to-day operations; and hiring
officers capable of working with a wide
cross section of people with a range of
domestic, financial, and welfare issues.
For more information see Fyfe and
McKay (1999) and Fyfe and McKay
(2000a).
c. Permanent relocation. The Federal Witness Security
Program provides secret and permanent relocation
of witnesses and their families to places of safety. §§§§
Witnesses must change their identities, sever all contacts
with friends and family, and agree to not return to their
home communities. In exchange, the program provides
safety and security, as well as start-up funding for housing
and subsistence until the witness becomes self-supporting.
State and local prosecutors can refer witnesses to the
program and reimburse the federal government for the
cost. Although the program reports high conviction rates and a good safety record, some significant issues must be considered. First, the psychological impact of
severing ties and taking on a new identity should not be ignored; participants report high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.69 Second, the program only accepts those who provide significant testimony in major cases. Third, because these witnesses often have extensive criminal records themselves, they may pose a danger to the community of relocation.70 Finally, secret relocation creates obvious difficulties for child custody arrangements and debtors seeking repayment.71
Deterring Intimidators
The responses discussed above address the symptoms
of intimidation (i.e., protecting the intimidated) rather
than the causes of intimidation (i.e., deterring the
intimidators). By implementing responses that address a
culture that tolerates intimidation, police and prosecutors
can demonstrate their determination to hold intimidators
accountable for their actions. 72 The following responses
focus on actions that can be taken in criminal court
proceedings.
14. Admonishing intimidators. When witnesses or victims
tell police they are afraid or have experienced direct
intimidation, police can visit the offender and his or
her family and friends to caution them regarding their
behavior and to explain the laws concerning witness
intimidation and obstruction of justice. In court, judges
should be vigilant about threatening gestures or actions
and should admonish defendants or spectators who
display such behaviors. Some jurisdictions educate judges
about the types of courtroom intimidation that are
exhibited by gang members, such as courtroom packing
29
30
or wearing black.73 Although admonishments by police
and judges are associated with a reduction in intimidation
reported by witnesses, judicial warnings not to contact
witnesses may have limited effectiveness in gang and
drug-related cases.74
15. Requesting high bail and no contact orders. In cases
where the risk of intimidation is significant, prosecutors
can seek high bail to keep defendants in jail and away
from witnesses. Where this strategy is used, bond hearings
cannot be a mere formality; witness statements and risk
assessments should be prepared in advance and presented
in court. Prosecutors should seek release conditions that
forbid contact with witnesses and victims and make sure
that the consequences for violating such conditions are
clearly articulated. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors
file multiple charges and request a separate bond for
each; prosecutors may also file federal charges where
appropriate.75 The effectiveness of this strategy is limited
by several factors.76
• The time between the original offense and arrest leaves
ample opportunity for intimidation to occur.
• Even if the defendant is incarcerated, his or her friends
and family can still intimidate witnesses.
• Defendants may be able to contact witnesses by telephone, even while incarcerated.
• Bond schedules are usually strict and intimidation
charges usually only require a small amount to be
posted.
• Incarcerating intimidators might not be possible in
jurisdictions where jail crowding is a concern or where
witness intimidation does not constitute an exception
to population caps.
16. Increasing penalties for intimidation. In many
jurisdictions, witness intimidation is a misdemeanor that
results in sentences concurrent with those for the original
offense. Thus, offenders who are charged with a violent
offense that carries a long sentence may feel they have
little to lose by trying to deter witnesses from providing
evidence. Making witness intimidation a felony-level
offense, increasing maximum sentences, and requiring
such sentences to be served consecutively might deter
offenders from tampering with witnesses.77
17. Prosecuting intimidators. The frequency with which
offenders are charged with intimidation varies widely
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.78 Prosecutors can
demonstrate their intolerance of witness intimidation
and their commitment to resident safety by vigorously
prosecuting offenders who harass, threaten, injure, or
otherwise intimidate or retaliate against witnesses. Witness
intimidation may also be cause to revoke probation or
parole.
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
18. Increasing patrols in a target area. If police are
made aware of the addresses of witnesses who have
experienced intimidation, they can increase the frequency
of patrol in the surrounding neighborhood. Although
the increased visibility may relieve anxiety, the chances of
actually intervening in an incident are slim unless police
are posted near the witnesses around the clock. Limited
resources are better deployed using one of the more
targeted measures discussed above.
19. Compelling witnesses to testify. Most states have
material witness laws that permit the arrest and detention
of any person with knowledge of a crime who refuses
31
32
to provide information in court.79 Witnesses who refuse
to testify are subject to contempt actions and may
be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.80 In theory,
compelling witnesses to testify shifts the responsibility
from the witness to the prosecutor and may therefore
reduce the risk of intimidation and the level of anxiety
experienced by the witness. However, others are still likely
to believe that the witness has chosen to cooperate.81
Although efforts to compel a witness to testify may
provide him or her with needed confidence, threatening a
witness with a contempt citation can also backfire, causing
an already reluctant witness to develop a sudden and
mysterious loss of memory. Because of concerns for the
rights of victims and the lack of proof that compelling
witnesses to testify is effective, this should be the option
of last resort.
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation
33
Appendix: Summary of Responses to
The table below summarizes the responses to witness
intimidation, the mechanisms by which they are intended
to work, the conditions under which they should work
best, and some factors that should be considered before
a particular response is implemented. It is critical that
responses are tailored to local circumstances and that each
response can be justified based upon reliable analysis. In
most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing
several different responses, because law enforcement alone
is seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy
1.
17
Forming
multi-agency
partnerships
Ensures that
witnesses are
protected
throughout
the process of
reporting crime
and testifying at
trial
... specific interagency
agreements detail
the roles and
responsibilities of each
agency
Crafting formalized
agreements takes time;
agency staff must ensure
the confidentiality
of witnesses; shared
responsibilities can result in
blurred accountability for
delivery of services
2.
18
Limiting
liability
Document all
measures taken
on behalf of
witnesses in
case of legal
challenges
… reports of
intimidation are
taken seriously;
absolute protection
is not guaranteed;
witnesses are involved
in decisions about
protective measures
Despite the best efforts
of police, witnesses may
still be harmed, which
can adversely affect future
cooperation
34
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
3.
19
Strengthening
ties between
police and the
community
Encourages
cooperation in
criminal cases;
increases police
visibility, which
can instill a
greater sense
of security in
community
residents
… a connection
is made between
cooperation and a
reduction in gang and
drug-related violence;
outreach efforts are
specially tailored
for Asian and other
immigrant communities
Outreach efforts require
time and patience; rate of
reported intimidation is
likely to increase and will
require additional resources;
could inspire increased
efforts from intimidators
4.
20
Assessing
the risk of
intimidation
Ensures that
decisions about
protective
measures are
consistent, fair,
and objective
… assessments are
conducted periodically
to determine if
protective measures are
sufficient; results of
assessments are shared
with witnesses
Could marginalize witnesses
who do not meet the
criteria for more intensive
modes of protection;
standardized assessments
may not capture casespecific nuances
5.
21
Choosing the
best strategy
Limits the
situations in
which witnesses
need to appear in
court
… an array of options
are available, including
criminal prosecution
and civil remedies
Civil penalties may be too
lenient, particularly when
used in response to violent
crime
Follow-up visits require
additional police time;
plainclothes officers may
still be identifiable; some
information may be lost
if witnesses decide not to
follow up with police
Protecting Witnesses
6.
21
Minimizing
the risk of
identification
witnesses
face when
reporting crime
or offering
statements
Provides safe
and confidential
avenues for
communication
between
residents and
police
… witnesses are
provided with a choice
of methods to report
crime or to make
statements
7.
22
Protecting the
identity of
witnesses
Prevents
offenders from
learning the
names and
addresses of
witnesses
… new procedures are Witnesses cannot be
developed that limit the guaranteed full anonymity
types of information
that are broadcast over
police radios; balance is
found between witness
safety and the right of
defendants to crossexamine witnesses
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
35
Considerations
8.
22
Using
alarms and
other crime
prevention
devices
Makes
unauthorized
entry into
witnesses’
homes more
difficult and
gives witnesses a
greater sense of
security; ensures
that instances of
intimidation will
receive a rapid
response
… witnesses are trained
to use devices properly;
witnesses use the
devices continuously
Security devices can be
costly; improper use may
increase the rate of false
alarms
9.
23
Reducing the
likelihood
of contact
between
witnesses and
offenders
Minimizes
opportunities for
intimidation
… routines are
varied; witnesses are
committed to using
avoidance tactics
May be inconvenient for
witnesses, resulting in lower
compliance
10.
23
Transporting
witnesses to
and from work,
school, etc.
Deters
… escort services are
intimidators from reserved for those at
making contact
high risk of injury
with witnesses
because of
the risk of
observation or
intervention by
escort
Escort schemes consume
significant police resources
and may not be feasible for
broad application; presence
of an escort may draw
unwanted attention to the
witness
11.
24
Supporting
witnesses
Addresses the
emotional impact
of victimization
to make
cooperation less
daunting and to
better prepare
witnesses to
provide accurate
information
Victim advocates cannot
be solely responsible for
supporting all witnesses, lest
they become overburdened
… victim advocates
have access to a wide
range of services
to address the
constellation of witness
needs; advocates are
properly trained so
that their actions do
not compromise the
integrity of the case
36
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
12.
25
Keeping
witnesses and
defendants
separated at the
courthouse
Reduces the
opportunities
for intimidation;
deters criminal
associates from
attending trial
and behaving in
an intimidating
fashion
… witnesses are
accompanied by an
advocate or volunteer
while they are on-call at
the courthouse
May be difficult to
accomplish depending
on the layout of the
courthouse; one-to-one
assistance can be difficult
to implement if multiple
witnesses require services
on the same day
13.
26
Relocating
witnesses
Removes
witnesses from
the danger area
… costs are minimized
by placing witnesses
with friends or
relatives; witnesses
obey all rules regarding
contact with their home
communities; additional
services are available
to address witnesses’
emotional, financial,
and domestic needs
Witnesses may not be
willing to obey program
rules; location of
new housing may be
compromised; witnesses
with criminal backgrounds
may present a risk to
public safety in their new
communities; child custody
and other legal issues must
be managed; the emotional
impact on witnesses can be
severe
Admonishing
intimidators
Deters
intimidators by
making them
aware of the
penalties for their
actions
… police confront
intimidators and their
families and associates;
judges are informed
of typical courtroombased intimidation
tactics
May have limited
effectiveness in gang and
drug-related cases
Deterring Intimidators
14.
29
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
37
15.
30
Requesting
high bail and
no contact
orders
Reduces the
opportunities
for intimidators
to confront
witnesses in the
community
… victim impact
statements are
presented at bond
hearing; release
conditions and the
consequences for their
violation are clearly
articulated
Time between offense and
arrest leaves ample time
for intimidation to occur;
friends and family may
still intimidate witness;
defendants may be able to
contact witnesses by phone,
even while incarcerated; bail
for intimidation is typically
low; jail crowding may
prevent the incarceration of
potential intimidators
16.
31
Increasing
penalties for
intimidation
Deters offenders
by increasing risk
… intimidation is a
felony-level offense;
sentences must be
served consecutively
Cases of intimidation are
difficult to prove; no general
deterrent effect
17.
31
Prosecuting
intimidators
Deters offenders
by increasing risk
… intimidation is
a consideration in
revoking parole or
probation
Cases of intimidation can be
difficult to prove
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
18.
31
Increasing
patrol in target
area
Increases
surveillance of
danger area
Consumes considerable
resources; chances of
actually intervening in an
incident are slim
19.
31
Compelling
witnesses to
testify
Transfers
responsibility for
the decision to
testify from the
witness to the
prosecutor
May backfire and cause
witnesses to claim they do
not remember the events
in question; may not
eradicate the perception that
witnesses are cooperating
voluntarily
Endnotes
Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Maynard (1994).
Johnson, Webster and Connors (1995).
Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998).
Fyfe and McKay (2000a).
Healey (1995).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Maynard (1994).
Elliot (1998); Fyfe (2001).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990).
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996); Butterfield (2005).
Healey (1995).
Finn and Healey (1996).
Fyfe (2001).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Buzawa and Buzawa
(1996); Comparet-Casani (2002).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Elliot (1998); Whitehead
(2001); Hamlyn et al. (2004).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Burgess et al. (2003).
Healey (1995).
Healey (1995).
Fyfe (2001); Burgess et al. (2003).
Elliot (1998).
Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Healey (1995); Finn and
Healey (1996); Elliot (1998).
Buzawa and Buzawa (1996).
Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998).
Healey (1995).
Finn and Healey (1996); Davis and Henderson (2003).
Institute for Law and Justice (1993); Johnson, Webster
and Connors (1995).
Connick and Davis (1983); Davis, Smith and Henley
(1990); Fyfe and McKay (2000b).
Finn and Healey (1996); Fyfe (2001); Whitehead (2001).
Comparet-Casani (2002).
39
40
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Fyfe and McKay (2000a).
Elliot (1998).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of
Crime (1998).
Plotnikoff and Woolfson (1997).
Healey (1995).
Fyfe (2001).
Tomz and McGillis (1997).
Healey (1995).
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996).
Elliot (1998); Fyfe and McKay (2000a).
Fyfe (2001).
Fyfe (2001).
Elliot (1998); Finn and Healey (1996).
Great Britain, Home Office (2001).
Butterfield (2005).
Lloyd, Farrell and Pease (1994).
Elliot (1998).
Gaines (2003).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of
Crime (1997).
Finn and Lee (1985).
Younger (1979); Healey (1995).
Finn and Lee (1985).
Tomz and McGillis (1997).
Maynard (1994).
Elliot (1998).
Healey (1995).
Hamlyn et al. (2004).
Endnotes
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
Healey (1995).
Fyfe and McKay (2000a); Fyfe (2001).
Gaines (2003).
Finn and Healey (1996); Gaines (2003); Kash (2004).
Slate (1997).
Slate (1997).
Fyfe (2001).
Healey (1995).
Connick and Davis (1983); Hamlyn et al. (2004); Finn
and Healey (1996).
Maynard (1994); Finn and Healey (1996).
Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996).
Studnicki and Apol (2002).
Rogan (1999).
Fyfe and Sheptycki (2005).
41
References
References
Bauer, R., C. Hasler, M. Myrent, R. Przybylski, G. Ramker
and J. Travis (1997). An Evaluation of the Illinois State Police
Gang Crime Witness Protection Program. Chicago: Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Burgess, R., N. Abigail, M. Lacriarde and J. Hawkins (2003).
Disrupting Crack Markets: A Practice Guide. London: Home
Office, Drug Strategy Directorate.
Butterfield, F. “Guns and Jeers Used by Gangs to Buy
Silence.” New York Times, January 16, 2005.
Buzawa, E., and C. Buzawa (eds.) (1996). Do Arrests and
Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks (California): Sage.
Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal Victimization, 2004. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Comparet-Casani, J. (2002). “Balancing the Anonymity of
Threatened Witnesses Versus a Defendant’s Right of
Confrontation: The Waiver Doctrine After Alvarado.” San
Diego Law Review 39(4): 1165-1252.
Connick, E., and R. Davis (1983). “Examining the Problem
of Witness Intimidation.” Judicature 66(10): 439-447.
Davis, R., and N. Henderson (2003). “Willingness to Report
Crimes: The Role of Ethnic Group Membership and
Community Efficacy.” Crime & Delinquency 49(4): 564-580.
Davis, R., B. Smith and M. Henley (1990). Victim/Witness
Intimidation in the Bronx Courts: How Common Is It, and What
Are Its Consequences? New York: Victim Services Agency.
43
44
Elliott, R. (1998). “Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses:
A Review of the Literature.” In Speaking Up for Justice.
London: Home Office.
Felson, R., S. Messner, A. Hoskin and G. Deane (2002).
"Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic
Violence to the Police." Criminology 40(3): 617-647.
Finn, P., and K. Healey (1996). Preventing Gang and DrugRelated Witness Intimidation. NIJ Issues and Practices Series.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice.
Finn, P., and B. Lee (1985). “Working With Victim/Witness
Assistance Programs: Benefits for Law Enforcement.”
Police Chief 52(6): 54-57, 60.
Fyfe, N. (2001). Protecting Intimidated Witnesses. Aldershot
(United Kingdom), Burlington (Vermont): Ashgate.
Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (1999). Making It Safe To Speak? A
Study of Witness Intimidation and Protection in Strathclyde.
Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit.
Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000a). “Police Protection of
Intimidated Witnesses: A Study of the Strathclyde Police
Witness Protection Programme.” Policing and Society 10(3):
277-299.
Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000b). “Witness Intimidation,
Forced Migration and Resettlement: A British Case
Study.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
25(1): 77-90.
Fyfe, N. and J. Sheptycki (2005). Facilitating Witness Cooperation
in Organized Crime Cases: An International Review. London:
Home Office.
References
Gaines, C. (2003). “Witness Intimidation.” United States
Attorneys’ Bulletin 51(1): 5-10.
Goldkamp, J., D. Gottfredson and J. Moore (1999).
Implementing Local Criminal Justice Strategies: Developing
Measures of Performance in 36 Bureau of Justice Assistance Open
Solicitation Sites. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research
Institute.
Great Britain Home Office (2001). Early Special Measures
Meetings Between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service and
Meetings Between the Crown Prosecution Service and Vulnerable or
Intimidated Witnesses: Practice Guide. London: Great Britain
Home Office Communication Directorate.
Hamlyn, B., A. Phelps, J. Turtle and G. Sattar (2004). Are
Special Measures Working? Evidence From Surveys of Vulnerable
and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Study, No.
283. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Healey, K. (1995). Victim and Witness Intimidation: New
Developments and Emerging Responses. Research in Action
Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of
Justice.
Institute for Law and Justice (1993). Gang Prosecution in the
United States. Alexandria (Virginia): Institute for Law and
Justice.
Johnson, C., B. Webster and E. Connors (1995). Prosecuting
Gangs: A National Assessment. NIJ Research in Brief
Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of
Justice.
45
46
Karmen, A. (2004). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology.
5th ed. Belmont (California): Wadsworth/Thomson.
Kash, D. (2004). “Hiding in Plain Sight: A Peek into the
Witness Security Program.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
73(5): 25-32.
Lloyd, S., G. Farrell and K. Pease (1994). Preventing Repeat
Domestic Violence: A Demonstration Project on Merseyside.
London: Home Office Police Research Group.
Maynard, W. (1994). Witness Intimidation: Strategies for Prevention.
Crime Detection and Prevention Series, No. 55. London:
Home Office Police Research Group.
Plotnikoff, J., and R. Woolfson (1997). Options for Improved
Support for Victims and Other Witnesses Attending Magistrates’
Courts. Unpublished report. London: Home Office.
Rogan, L. (1999). “Price of Protecting Our Children: The
Dilemma of Allowing Children to Testify as Key Witnesses
to Gang Violence.” Journal of Juvenile Law 20: 127-140.
Slate, R. (1997). “The Federal Witness Protection Program: Its
Evolution and Continuing Growing Pains.” Criminal Justice
Ethics 16(2): 20-34.
Studnicki, S., and J. Apol (2002). “Witness Detention and
Intimidation: The History and Future of Material Witness
Law.” St. John’s Law Review 76(3): 483-533.
Tomz, J., and D. McGillis (1997). Serving Crime Victims and
Witnesses, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.
References
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General
(2000). Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and
Witness Assistance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
publications/infores/agg2000.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime
(1997). Law Enforcement’s Promising Practices in the Treatment
of Crime Victims: A Report to Promote the Development and
Expansion of Victim-Oriented Policies and Practices in Law
Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime
(1998). New Directions From the Field: Victims’ Rights and
Services for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Whitehead, E. (2001). Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the
Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000. Home Office Research
Study, No. 230. London: Home Office Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate.
Younger, E. (1979). “The Neglected Problem of Witness
Intimidation.” Judges’ Journal 18(4):20-24.
47
About the Author
About the Author
Kelly Dedel
Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a criminal
justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. As a consultant
to federal, state, and local agencies, she contributes to research on
the juvenile and criminal justice systems by 1) developing written
tools to enhance practice or inform public policy; 2) conducting
investigations of confinement conditions in juvenile correctional
facilities; and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile
and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. She has
provided evaluation-related technical assistance to more than 60
jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of Justice Assistance. In
this capacity, she has worked with a broad range of criminal justice
programs implemented by police, prosecutors, public defenders,
juvenile detention and confinement facilities, local jails, community
corrections, and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as
a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile correctional
facilities, most often in the areas of education and protection from
harm. Among her other research interests are prisoner reentry,
risk assessment and offender classification, and juveniles in adult
correctional facilities. Before working as a consultant, she was a
founder and senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime,
Justice, and Corrections at The George Washington University, and
a senior research associate at the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency. Dedel received bachelor’s degrees in psychology and
criminal justice from the University of Richmond and a doctorate
in clinical psychology from the Center for Psychological Studies, in
Berkeley, California.
49
Recommended Readings
• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their
Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This
guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners
to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying
public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It
provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,
by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide
is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series.
It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing
problem-oriented policing efforts.
• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel
(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with
accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic
pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The
document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke
(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of
volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing
opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of
initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
51
52
• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The
1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This
document produced by the National Institute of Justice
in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum
provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the
annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A
similar publication is available for the award winners from
subsequent years. The documents are also available at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime
Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office
Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and
describes the factors that make problem-solving effective
or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in
England and Wales.
• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory
for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.
Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,
1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity
theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory
have practical implications for the police in their efforts to
prevent crime.
• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police
Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem
analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis
can be integrated and institutionalized into modern
policing practices.
• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein
(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).
Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented
policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses
how a police agency can implement the concept.
• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention,
by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003).
Provides a thorough review of significant policing research
about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat
victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings
to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police
departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by
improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and
securing productive partnerships.
• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the
First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
2000). Describes how the most critical elements of
Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have
developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes
future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report
is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in
Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the
rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the
problem-solving process, and provides examples of
effective problem-solving in one agency.
53
54
• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving
Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.
gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving,
basic information on the SARA model and detailed
suggestions about the problem-solving process.
• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case
Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke
(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and
methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over
20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety
Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by
Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case
studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of
crime and disorder problems.
• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook
for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for
police to analyzing problems within the context of
problem-oriented policing.
• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement
Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.
LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains
many of the basics of research as it applies to police
management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.
Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7
5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3
7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.
Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2
16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.
Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
55
56
21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4
22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4
23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A.
Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2
24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-33-9
25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3
26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak.
2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3
27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8
28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8
29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6
30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike
Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2
32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0
33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-47-9
34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9
35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005.
ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7
36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B.
Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman.
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck.
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6
40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley
and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7
42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3
Response Guides series:
• The Benefits and Consequences of Police
Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X
• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should
You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5
• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety
Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein.
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X
• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe.
2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4
Problem-Solving Tools series:
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
•
•
•
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3
Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A.
Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7
Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem
Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5
Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm
Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1
57
58
Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides
Domestic Violence
Bank Robbery
Drive-by Shootings
Disorder at Day Laborer Sites
Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues
Traffic Congestion Around Schools
Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses
Robbery of Convenience Stores
Theft from Cars on Streets
Problem-Solving Tools
Risky Facilities
Implementing Responses to Problems
Designing a Problem Analysis System
Response Guides
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call
the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit
COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
For More InForMatIon:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.
e07063407
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3
July 2006
www.cops.usdoj.gov

- COPS Resource Center

Transcription

Similar documents

RoboCam

Elena Ford, Why haven`t you responded to my

Our Play Safe Program encourages children to play

2005-668 Figueroa, Felizardo - Leyvas, Jimmy

Do Jehovah`s Witnesses Assist With Disaster Relief

HER WORD AS WITNESS:

An Overview of Expert Evidence - Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

Crime Reporting Centres

FRAMING A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF OUR WORLD ADVANCED

Alphonse Bertillion - Hicksville Public Schools / Homepage